Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Ajay Kumar Thakur —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Jaiswal Motors and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2942 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 12/08/2016 in Appeal No. 150 of 2009 of the State Commission Bihar)
Decided on 24.10.2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Bhalla and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any credible evidence that there is any manufacturing defect in vehicle, petitioner is not entitled to such replacement of vehicle or refund of entire price of vehicle.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Manufacturing defect—Compensation of Rs. 42,693/- awarded by District Forum—No automobile engineer was produced by complainant/petitioner before District Forum to prove that there was manufacturing defect in vehicle—Vehicle was taken to workshop a number of times and it has been repaired—District Forum besides awarding cost of repair has also awarded compensation quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to petitioner/complainant—In absence of any credible evidence that there is any manufacturing defect in vehicle, petitioner is not entitled to such replacement of vehicle or refund of entire price of vehicle—Vehicle having used for last 15 years or so, complainant is not entitled either to its replacement or to price paid by him for it—No ground for interfering with impugned order made out—Revision petition dismissed. (Para 5)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/petitioner purchased a Bajaj tempo vehicle from Jaiswal Motors, Darbhanga for consideration of Rs. 1,81,000/-. A number of defects were allegedly noticed in the vehicle which was taken to the dealer who replaced several parts of the vehicle on different dates on payment of a total sum of Rs. 15,693/-. Alleging defect in the vehicle, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. It would be pertinent to note here that warranty period of the vehicle was only six months. Therefore, the said warranty period expired on 19.7.2001.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which alleged that the warranty was for 180 days or 7500 km whichever be earlier and the complainant/petitioner was plying the vehicle roughly, negligently and had not even availed the mandatory service.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 9.4.2009, awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner/complainant and the cost of repair amounting to Rs. 15,693/- besides Rs. 2,000/-towards cost of litigation. Thus a total sum of Rs. 42,693/- was granted to him.
4. Being aggrieved form the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.8.2016, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. No automobile engineer was produced by the complainant/petitioner before the District Forum to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Though the vehicle was taken to workshop a number of times, the fact remains that it has been repaired. The District Forum besides awarding the cost of repair has also awarded compensation quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner/complainant. In the absence of any credible evidence that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the petitioner is not entitled to such replacement of the vehicle or refund of the entire price of the vehicle. In any case, the vehicle having been purchased in January 2001, must have been used for last 15 years or so. Having used it for such a long period, the complainant is not entitled either to its replacement or to the price paid by him for it. Therefore, no ground for interfering with the impugned order is made out. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision Petition dismissed.
